An avoidable tragedy...

[martin-w 3,252]

On 10/22/2021 at 12:37 PM, W2DR said:

I don't know who's responsible for loading the firearm but Noel's right. It's absolutely the first duty of anyone handing a firearm under any circumstance to verify the state of the weapon. The ultimate fault here lies with Baldwin. 

 

No, I don't agree with that. There are prop masters and armourers on set who specialise in this, their job is to prepare and check all fireman's. Actors don't have the training or time to do such a thing. Think of the number of rounds fired in something like a John Wick movie. No way would an actor have the capability to check thousands of rounds. Experts are employed to check such things, not actors who are untrained. 

According to the BBC one of the directors handed the gun to Baldwin and confirmed it was safe. He shouted "cold gun" and handed it to him. 

The head armourer who was responsible for such things was on set apparently.

We don't know at this point what happened, but I know of two other incidents like this. One was an actor who put a gun to his head as a joke because the filming was delayed, the shockwave from the blank killed him. The other was Brandon Lee, when the gun he was shot with had a slug from a dummy round stuck in the barrel, it was then projected out by the propellent in the subsequent blank.

[stans 705]

According to a post on a firearms forum, the armorer had brought some live rounds to the set.  He was planning on shooting the live rounds during a break.  Allegedly, he got the blanks and live rounds mixed up.  How an armorer can confuse a live round for a blank is beyond me.  I cannot imagine the mental state that Alec Baldwin must be in right now.

[martin-w 3,252]

19 hours ago, birdguy said:

The first thing he must be told is to never point the weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.  The second thing is to verify a gun is either unloaded or properly loaded with the proper type of ammunition.

The ultimate responsibility lies with the shooter.  The person who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

 

It was the first thing my father taught me as a child, never point a gun at anyone. However, this was a movie set and pointing in the direction of the camera is common, a down the lens shot. Strict guidelines are usually in place, like face masks, Perspex shields and a given distance away. Perspex shields don't help if an armorer or prop master or anyone else has missed a live round or like in Brandon lee's case, a slug from a dummy round is in the barrel.

Don't agree that actors should check guns. They are oblivious how to check barrels for debris and rounds for type. And they can't physically check thousands of rounds that are fired in lengthy sequences. Thus, its the job of the expert armorer and his/her staff. The other point of course is that if a tourist nips over to the US as someone oblivious to the use of firearms and visits a rifle range, it will be the expert there with him/her that checks the gun is loaded and then unloaded and safe. Not the tourist, as someone undedicated in such things. 

 

[martin-w 3,252]

15 hours ago, birdguy said:

If the procedure on the set is to hand a gun to an actor and say fire it without the shooter checking it first it should be changed.

 

This would require every actor on a movie set who is or will handling firearms loaded with blanks, to be well trained in that respect. They would have to learn how to identify different rounds, how to identify a potential issue in a barrel, and a number of other factors. That isn't going to happen given the literally thousands of rounds fired on move sets in each action movie. Far better for an expert to do it. If an actor was going to fire a gun in my direction I would most definitely want an expert armorer to check the weapon, and a double check from his assistant. Not some actor who is not an expert. I suspect that the movies insurers wouldn't be okay with less than expert actors doing the checking either. 

[Christopher Low 5,379]

24 minutes ago, stans said:

According to a post on a firearms forum, the armorer had brought some live rounds to the set.  He was planning on shooting the live rounds during a break.  Allegedly, he got the blanks and live rounds mixed up.  How an armorer can confuse a live round for a blank is beyond me.  I cannot imagine the mental state that Alec Baldwin must be in right now.

If that is true, then it is very irresponsible. There should never be live rounds anywhere near a movie set.

[stans 705]

Another story is out about working conditions.  Seems a number union workers walked off about 6 hours before this incident occurred.  They were disgruntled over their pay, travel arrangements, and a lack of safety briefings.  Non-union people were brought in as replacements so filming could continue.  The lack of safety briefings is, in my mind, a glaring issue.

[birdguy 3,946]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

This would require every actor on a movie set who is or will handling firearms loaded with blanks, to be well trained in that respect. They would have to learn how to identify different rounds, how to identify a potential issue in a barrel, and a number of other factors.

EXACTLY!

It doesn't take that long to train a person on gun safety or how to check a gun.  And any actor or actress who is required to handle a gun should have a card indicating they have gone through a gun safety course.  They are taught everything else about acting so acting with a firearm should not take too much time.  The 'I'm the armorer, so trust me' is a recipe for disaster.  

If I was able to teach my children at an early age how to use and check all the guns I owned at ne time; .22 rifle and revolver, .308 hunting rifle, 9mm handgun, and a shotgun in less than a day and another day on the range as well as a review in field before actually firing the weapons it should be required a required part of any actor - actress's training prior t using a firearm in a scene where a shooting is to occur.

"I didn't know the gun was loaded" is not an acceptable excuse.  Distinguishing blanks from live rounds and emptying the cylinder of or a revolver, checking each of the six rounds, and putting them back into cylinder shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.  And it would prevent tragedies like what happened at the movie set in New Mexico.  Perhaps the biggest tragedy is Baldwin himself who will have to live out the rest of his life knowing he took a life, even though it was accidental.

If an actor can be taught to laugh, cry, sing, dance, apply makeup, show happiness or moodiness on cue they are smart enough to be trained in gun safety.  Just a single day in their basic training and a short review when handed a weapon on site, is worth the time if it means potentially saving of a life.

Noel

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by birdguy

[W2DR 1,860]

Right on Noel. Never, ever, trust ANYONE when they say a weapon is "safe". The ultimate responsibility lies with the person pulling the trigger, no one else. All the talk about "gee, he's just an actor" doesn't cut it. I'll bet the person who told him the gun was "cold" never check the state of the weapon IMMEDIATELY before it was used. Baldwin certainly never checked it.  

[martin-w 3,252]

51 minutes ago, birdguy said:

EXACTLY!

It doesn't take that long to train a person on gun safety or how to check a gun.  And any actor or actress who is required to handle a gun should have a card indicating they have gone through a gun safety course.  They are taught everything else about acting so acting with a firearm should not take too much time.  The 'I'm the armorer, so trust me' is a recipe for disaster.  

 

I get what you are saying Noel, but its the practicality of such a thing I see as the issue. Just training an actor to check its a blank in the gun wouldn't be sufficient and it wouldn't have saved Brandon Lee's life who was killed by a slug lodged further up the barrel. Debris in the barrel is another issue, we cant expect actors to dismantle weapons and carefully examine a barrels internal state. 

Not practical in terms of the other point I raised as well, literally thousands of rounds are fired in something like a John Wick movie, how on Earth would an actor be able to verify that all those rounds were blanks and that all barrels were clear of debris? This is of course the task that a qualified armourer and his team are responsible for.

 

51 minutes ago, birdguy said:

they are smart enough to be trained in gun safety.

 

Its not about being smart, its about practicality.

Edited October 23, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,252]

This is interesting. A prop master talks about the extreme measures gone to with prop weapons. How they check all weapons, have safety meetings with the actors, let the actors check the waepons and explain the weapon prior to the scene being filmed. Gun safety is bulletin number one re movie safety as he puts it.

 

The second expert talks about the extreme caution with guns on set.

Something obviously went seriously wrong in this movie in regard to standard protocols. 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by martin-w

[dmwalker 611]

I notice that neither prop master in the video mentions plugs or wads being projected, only powder and gas.

Also, there are references in this thread to armorers and prop masters. Are they two separate people or just two names for the same person?

There's a lot of focus here on the ultimate responsibility of the actor but, if a highly trained armorer/prop master loaded live ammunition into the gun, wouldn't they and not the actor be held criminally responsible?

Edited October 23, 2021 by dmwalker

[W2DR 1,860]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Debris in the barrel is another issue, we cant expect actors to dismantle weapons and carefully examine a barrels internal state. 

You don't have to dismantle anything. On a revolver just open the cylinder and look down the barrel. On a semi-auto just rack the slide and look down the barrel. How much simpler can it be. Had Brandon Lee looked into the barrel he'd probably still be here now.

 

 

[birdguy 3,946]

Checking for a blockage in the  barrel is not big deal.  In a revolover just swing the cylinders out and peek down the barrel.  In a semi automatic pistol just pull the slide back and lock it and peek down the barrel.  With lever action rifles just pull the lever down and peek down the barrel.  Takes less than a minute.

The hundreds of rounds fired in a gun fight are sound effects.  Pistols and rifles don't hold that many rounds.  The Colt revolvers and lever action Winchesters don't fire more than few rounds before they require reloading.

In Baldwin's case if he was holding a pistol it would have most likely been a Colt 45 or some other revolver.  He just had to swing the cylinder out and peek at the points of the rounds.  A real bullet mixed with blanks would have been quite obvious.  And the time taken would have been less than a minute,

In my particular case acting in a scene which didn't require me to fire the pistol, only hold the cast members at gunpoint, I refused to use a real weapon even though the director told me that he and the prop girl would make sure it wasn't loaded.  I was also thinking of the cast member who would not want a real gun pointed at them under any circumstances. 

[birdguy 3,946]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

let the actors check the waepons 

YES!  Let the actors check the weapons including checking there are no live rounds in the cylinder or magazine.  In a semi-automatic pistol suck checking requires the slide be be pulled back and locked which would automatically eject a chambered round.  Then you just turn the pistol around and look down the barrel to see it there are any obstructions.

When I was in the Air Force and I was handed a carbine or .38 or .45 for my annual qualification the first thing I did with any of them was to see if they were loaded and peek down the barrel.  It takes less than a minute.

Martin, I'm curious.  Do you own any guns or are you familiar with them and how they operate?

Noel

[W2DR 1,860]

7 minutes ago, birdguy said:

In Baldwin's case if he was holding a pistol it would have most likely been a Colt 45 or some other revolver.

It's been reported that it was an 1880's vintage .44 revolver (almost certainly Colt). I'm surprised though that it wasn't a .45 as that was, by far, the most popular caliber of the time